The “whatever Obama’s for, I’m against” movement is qualitatively different from the typical partisan disagreements of the past. I think one would be hard pressed to find examples during previous administrations of senators filibustering their own bills once the President comes out in favor of them, but it’s happened during Obama’s.
One of my favorite moments from the 2012 campaign was when Herman Cain was asked what ought to be done about Libya, and he didn’t dare answer…because Obama was scheduled to make a policy announcement about it the next day.
Cain was in pure terror of accidentally saying the same thing that Obama might say!
Unlikely, but how on earth could you know that was his motivation? In the interview, he seemed to be completely unsure what had been going on in Libya, and he was asked about whether he agreed with what Obama had already done, not what should be done in the future. The interview was in Nov 2011, and the US involvement had ended in Oct.
Or were you thinking of some other interview?
It was the timing, specifically: Obama was about to make a policy announcement the next day, and Cain was so clearly unwilling to make any policy statement of his own.
I can’t prove it…but at the time, quite a few people were making the observation I just made: he appeared to be afraid of accidentally agreeing with Obama. That would have been instant death for his campaign (which didn’t have long to live anyway.)
Can you link to the policy statement Obama was “about to make”? It would seem odd to make a policy statement at that time since the operation was over. But maybe your memory is better than mine…
How about you prove your assertion that there is no such poll first? Then we can discuss why there isn’t any.
Well golly, I was asked to prove a negative!
I guess this answers my question as to whether or not you’ve ever had a PS or Civics class.
I’m too lazy to look for any polls, and proving something to you is very low on my hierarchy of needs, so, I won’t be providing any cites, but, I am compelled to ask:
Since you said that there weren’t any polls on other presidents anywhere, can you tell me what databases that you searched and what keywords you used in searching for any such polls?
Thanks.
Sorry; memory is all I’ve got. The only thing I can add is that I wasn’t the only one saying this at the time, so if you really give a shit, you could search Huffpo, Kos, etc., and likely find it.
Also, if there haven’t been similar polls, for Republican presidents, what is the reason? The OP only indicates that people could be partisan. Shocking, that.
Well golly, I am still being asked to prove a negative!
Maybe you can come up with a cite that Democrats were against Bush’s AIDS policy in Africa. Or even that they were against his immigration proposals - you know, the ones his own party shot down?
Perhaps there were no similar polls (and I don’t remember any, and if there had been any they’d have been discussed here) because there was no incentive to do one.
It is premature to formulate a theory specific to Obama until we have established that this phenomenon is specific to him.
I’m sure that a similar effect would have been president in just about any presidential administration in the past several decades. However, I also strongly suspect that it is MUCH larger now than it ever has been in the past.
I’d be interested to see the results of a poll done today asking liberals of they support positions, and then asking them if they support the positions knowing that Obama supports them, and so forth.
I certainly feel that conservatives today are more partisan than liberals, but I admit that I can’t prove it. I do, however, strongly reject the facile position that they’re equally partisan, just because, umm, things are equal.
I just want to second this. People can holler “cite!”, but we all remember just how toxic the “Dubya” name became. Whether such a survey was done at the time or not, I’ve no doubt that attaching his name to a domestic policy would have a similar effect on support.
That’s quite disingenuous though.
If someone points a camera, and puts a mic in front of me, I’m not going to correct anything they say unless I’m 1 million percent sure I’m right.
So you ask me if I’m looking forward to Halley’s comet’s return in 2018…I’m 99% sure that’s not right, but 99% is not sure enough to correct someone on TV. Or maybe I just misheard you and you’re talking about another comet that sounds like Halley’s? So I’d probably run with it.
Ironically it’s because one doesn’t want to look stupid on TV, and no-one expects this kind of set up.
Why would you reject it? Unless there are some sort of studies that show it why would one expect liberals or conservatives to be much different on broad human emotions? From my position in the middle both sides are partisan whenever they can gain something out of it.
It did become toxic - but not five minutes after his inauguration. Especially not after 9/11. He screwed up in Iraq. He let bin Laden get away. He tried to kill Social Security. And by the end of his reign the economy was in ruins.
Still, no democrat announced that the most important thing in Congress was to make sure he was not re–elected. And they didn’t try to repeal the tax cuts for the rich sixty-eleven times.
So, if his name was toxic, it was because he earned it.
Absolutely, I agree.
Nevertheless, I stand by what I said. If you said to group A “Do you approve of policy X” and to group B, “Do you approve of GWB’s policy X”, you’d find greater support in group A, I’d stake my reputation on it 
And that would be a bias, even if he was a useless president.
ETA: I guess it’s because people virtually parse it as two questions: “Do you support GWB?” and “Do you support X policy?”
There’s the flipside, where people hated something and complained endlessly about it…until Obama did it too.